Session 18 September 2021

[SasaM]

Thanks Laura and Chateau Crew for the new session! This part is coincidental for me:



One of the many books on the pile that I've finally gotten too is QFG translated, Red Pill Press published, Valerius Antias and Caesar by Carl Zohren. It is an eye-opening exposition in the use of lies and deceit by Ancient Roman historians, specifically Valerius Antias. As the book cover says: His work provided the justification Caesar's murderers needed to go down in history as Rome's Saviors.

So, to read the above from the session, it kind of follows that the influence of the 'lizzies' has been repeatedly deceiving mankind for 1500 years. When I read old roman political invective, I think of it as propaganda. Softening the reality of the lie. But, some big lies have been building layer upon layer for centuries. A new dot has now been connected! I can't wait for Laura's next book!

Can't recommend enough Zohren's dissertation "Valerius Antias and Caesar", great booklet to get in right mood and state of mind for diving into the FPTM.

(Pierre) I'm trying to reconcile the AD timeline of history and the BP timeline, ice cores and dendrochronology. There seems to be one matching marker at 536 AD - a year without summer, very cold, very bad weather - seemingly matching the 1500 BP mark with a converging cooling all over the planet revealed by ice cores and tree rings. So my question is: Is it a real match?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) In a previous session you mentioned about 470 years added between us and Julius Caesar. If it matches, it means these 470 years were added before 536 AD?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) It means Caesar died about 70 years before this 536 event?

A: Yes

If really true, this "addition of 470 years" in that specific time period would put everything in a very different light, especially the history of early Christian movement.

I don't recall this line of inquiry followed up in later sessions after this one.

If only 70 years were between the murder of Caesar and alleged cometary impact that ended the Roman Empire, with presumably Justinian being the last real emperor, then Marcion and everything that happened vis-a-vis him and early Christian Fathers was after the event, including the compilation of Luke-Acts? Was Justinian then really a Christian or were all the churches and basilicas that bear his images and mosaics today just 'transformed' Roman imperial temples after the fact?

Did Paul act before or after the event? Presumably it was before, as there is basically no trace of that devastation in what we have from him, and the event possibly caused even more chaos in the time period from Paul to Marcion. If Paul really acted before the cometary impact, how long it was after the murder of Caesar?

What about the destruction of Jerusalem dated to 70 AD that was the background upon which presumably Mark was written, how did that relate to the 'impact' event? If that was after the event as the date would suggest, which might have also been one of the reasons for the Jewish uprising, were the Romans, and if so which Romans exactly as the Empire would be no more, responsible for its destruction? Did maybe the event caused the destruction of the Jerusalem and the "mother church"?
How many years after the murder of Caesar exactly did the 'first' destruction of Jerusalem, for whatever reason, happen?

If there would be interest and enough time and energy left, maybe some of these questions might be considered for some of the next sessions with the C's.
If of course they have not been answered already somewhere on Forum and I just haven't been attentive enough to have caught that myself. In that case, my sincere apologies.

 

[Evan]

@SasaM Have you delved into this thread?

Were 460 years added to the timeline?

 

[SasaM]

@SasaM Have you delved into this thread?

Were 460 years added to the timeline?

Not exactly that one, but the other one referenced therein by Mari:

Thread 'Were 460 years added to the official chronology?'

Dec 31, 2021

The following thread is split off from this discussion about a 'planetary alignment' in early 2022.

Informed by Laura's biblical research and recent sessions with the Cs, it appears that as many as five centuries may have been 'added' to official chronology - specifically, between the end of the Roman Empire (whenever exactly that was) and the beginning of the Middle Ages.

With a view to researching and discussing this possibility, the following thread opens with the latest chapter from Pierre's new book, Mass Extinctions, Evolutionary Leaps, and the Virus-Information...

• Pierre
• Replies: 186
• Forum: History

• 
• 
• 

At the time was actively involved in the discussion, but at the end was beating around the 'wrong' bushes, so to say, in addition to wildly speculating without much of reliable info to back many of those speculations up.

It was suggested:

If you haven't already read "From Paul to Mark", you might want to do so as it may help you to get accustomed to how to read ancient texts and note when the author is obfuscating or where possible interpolations or redactions have occurred.

which is in the process of rereading, after few others including Zohren's dissertation mentioned here and CatHoM in another thread.

Going through that "460 added years?" thread, it seems things haven't moved much from where they were some time ago, which possibly means there's no much interest anymore in that issue.

On the other hand, haven't seen these questions in previous post here addressed on the Forum so far, which take a look at the problem at hands from a bit different perspective. They do not attack directly the sorting out of the late Roman history issue, but look to 'position' the early Christian figures and events, like Paul, Marcion and his 'fight' with 2nd century AD Church Fathers, and the destruction of Jerusalem, in relation to the cometary impact event of 536 AD that allegedly ended the Roman Empire.

Also, in this session the C's answered "Yes" to Pierre's question, "Caesar died about 70 years before this 536 event?", which is almost only a half of what was later discussed in that "460 added years?" thread.

If 460 years were added, then Julius Caesar, who was born in 100 BC according to the official timeline, would be born in 360 AD according to the revised timeline. That's 180 years before the 540 AD events.

The difference, if C's answer in this thread is closer to the actual truth, could be very important. It would seriously question if Christianity would really have had enough time to spread after Paul's missions and letters, and to take such a strong roots across the Roman Empire, to produce so many artifacts depicting the last real Roman emperor, Justinian, as a devoted Christian only about 70 years after the assassination of Caesar. Which naturally implies that there would have been even less time, maybe much less time, from Paul to Justinian. To know how much time we actually have at our disposition for all these things to transpire, it would be appropriate to position the people and the events also in relation to Caesar's death.

Of course, the underlying assumption on which this line of inquiry relies is that those people actually lived in those times, not necessarily under those exact names though, and that the events in question also actually happened.

If we could know these few things, me thinks that we could work something out of all that mess and lies, regardless of the textual sources we have being complete forgeries or not.

 

[stellar]

(Joe) If there's a kind of rough mirror in this go-round, first Caesar and then a Dark Ages and collapse... And then in our era, a close match might be JFK as this era's Caesar. 1963. Plus 70 years is 2033.

(Pierre) Oh, I see what you mean.

(Niall) So 70 years after Caesar's death. So it's 44 BC. What's 44 + 70? So it's right after the fall, kaboom, it's gone. In fact, Paul didn't live very long.

So what then is year 0 AD demarcating exactly. Not the birth, not the death, then what?
In another session the Cs referred to the year 2014 as year 0. Any potential correlation?

 

[palestine]

(Pierre) I'm trying to reconcile the AD timeline of history and the BP timeline, ice cores and dendrochronology. There seems to be one matching marker at 536 AD - a year without summer, very cold, very bad weather - seemingly matching the 1500 BP mark with a converging cooling all over the planet revealed by ice cores and tree rings. So my question is: Is it a real match?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) In a previous session you mentioned about 470 years added between us and Julius Caesar. If it matches, it means these 470 years were added before 536 AD?

A: Yes

a 1500 BP event

so, 1950-1500 = 450 AD

"450 AD is same event than 536 AD"

a discrepancy of 86 years

So - when dendrochronology, ice cores, etc - show an event, at 450AD or 1500BP and featuring a similarity with the 536 AD period - there is a requirement to add 86 years.

The correct dates would become 536 AD and 1586 BP

Is this correct?

(Why does the BP base include a discrepancy?)

 

[axj]

The difference, if C's answer in this thread is closer to the actual truth, could be very important. It would seriously question if Christianity would really have had enough time to spread after Paul's missions and letters, and to take such a strong roots across the Roman Empire, to produce so many artifacts depicting the last real Roman emperor, Justinian, as a devoted Christian only about 70 years after the assassination of Caesar.

The Vatican had hundreds of years after the destruction of the Roman Empire to fake everything under the Sun. The difficult part was probably to get big non-European neighbours to go along with the scam, eg. during the Islamic Golden Age.

 

[SasaM]

The Vatican had hundreds of years after the destruction of the Roman Empire to fake everything under the Sun. The difficult part was probably to get big non-European neighbours to go along with the scam, eg. during the Islamic Golden Age.

After checking in other sessions, simple math gives that there were 157 years between Caesar being born and the cataclysmic event of 536 AD, which aligns with the other C's answer that there were "about 100" years from Caesar's death to that event.

Regarding the Vatican, they would need to be "born" after the destruction of the Roman Empire, but yeah, just like they miraculously found Procopius' Secret History in their library in 1623 that solidified the official version of Justinian era in mid 6th century AD, they would also have plenty of time from the conquest of Byzantium/Constantinople during Crusades to iron things out to their satisfaction.
From Wikipedia:

Procopius's now famous Anecdota, also known as Secret History (Ancient Greek: Ἀπόκρυφη Ἱστορία, Apókryphe Historía; Latin: Historia Arcana), was discovered centuries later at the Vatican Library in Rome and published in Lyon by Niccolò Alamanni in 1623. Its existence was already known from the Suda, which referred to it as Procopius's "unpublished works" containing "comedy" and "invective" of Justinian, Theodora, Belisarius and Antonina.

Getting inline with Islam chronology in principle would not pose a big issue, as it starts with the year 570 AD when Muhammad was born in Mecca (link), which is conveniently just a bit short to touch upon the event of 536 AD:

Chronology
Contributed by Prof. Dr. Nazeer Ahmed, PhD

Year Event
570 Birth of Prophet Muhammed (p) at Mecca
610 Revelation of the first verses of the Qur’an
Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) and Abu Bakr as Siddiq (r) accept Islam
615 Conversion of Omar ibn al Khattab (r).
620 A group of Muslims migrates to Abyssinia to escape the persecution in Mecca.
622 Prophet Muhammed (p) migrates to Madina.
Start of the Islamic calendar.

From that period onward, events over in Islam area of influence can even be used as a background or a template to transfer things into mostly Eastern European history, as shown in the "460 added years?" thread 3 or 4 years when dealing with the "mythological" account of Cyril and Methodius' histories during the mid 9th century AD.

 

[axj]

From that period onward, events over in Islam area of influence can even be used as a background or a template to transfer things into mostly Eastern European history

Yes, the Islamic world probably deferred to the European version of history before 536 AD (as the succesors of the Roman Empire) since there were not many historical sources from that era in the Middle East or North Africa.

Later there was also the curious case of Jesuits "helping" the Emperor of China with adjusting the Chinese calendar already in the early 1600s. Which is very early and shows that it was a priority for the Vatican to keep the calendar scam going.

 

[SasaM]

Yes, the Islamic world probably deferred to the European version of history before 536 AD (as the succesors of the Roman Empire) since there were not many historical sources from that era in the Middle East or North Africa.

What could happened that might suggest something suspicious were going on, would be the peculiar absences of Byzantine records about events recorded in histories of the Islam world, like the Sack of Damietta in 853 AD, mentioned in "460 added years?" thread post.

From Wikipedia:

The Sack of Damietta was a successful raid on the port city of Damietta on the Nile Delta by the Byzantine navy on 22–24 May 853. The city, whose garrison was absent at the time, was sacked and plundered, yielding not only many captives but also large quantities of weapons and supplies intended for the Arab Emirate of Crete. The Byzantine attack, which was repeated in the subsequent years, shocked the Abbasid authorities, and urgent measures were taken to refortify the coasts and strengthen the local fleet, beginning a revival of the Egyptian navy that culminated in the Tulunid and Fatimid periods.

Background​

During the 820s, the Byzantine Empire suffered two great losses that destroyed its naval supremacy in the Mediterranean: the beginning of the Arab Muslim conquest of Sicily and the conquest of Crete to Andalusian exiles. These losses ushered in an era where Arab pirates raided the Christian northern shores of the Mediterranean almost at will. The establishment of the Emirate of Crete, which became a haven for Muslim ships, opened the Aegean Sea up for raids, while their—albeit partial—control of Sicily allowed the Arabs to raid and even settle in Italy and the Adriatic shores. Several Byzantine attempts to retake Crete in the immediate aftermath of the Andalusian conquest, as well as a large-scale invasion in 842/43, failed with heavy losses.

Byzantine expedition against Damietta​

In 853 the Byzantine government tried a new approach: instead of attacking Crete directly, they tried to sever the island's lines of supply, principally from Egypt, which was, in the words of Alexander Vasiliev, "the arsenal of the Cretan pirates". The Arab historian al-Tabari reports that three fleets, totalling almost 300 ships, were prepared and sent on simultaneous raids of Muslim naval bases in the Eastern Mediterranean. The precise targets of the first two fleets are unknown, but the third, comprising 85 ships and 5,000 men under a commander known from Arab sources only as "Ibn Qaṭūnā", headed for the Egyptian coast.
...

Aftermath and impact​

Although the raid at Damietta was, according to historian Vassilios Christides, "one of the brightest military operations" undertaken by the Byzantine military, it is completely ignored in Byzantine sources, probably because most accounts are warped by their hostile attitude to Michael III (r. 842–867) and his reign. As a result, the raid is known only through two Arab accounts, by al-Tabari and Ya'qubi.

The commander of alleged Byzantine ships was recorded by the Arab sources only as "Ibn Qatuna", and was not identified with any known specific historical person. A possible reason for an omission in the official records of such successful military operation might be that this man, son of Qatuna, and his forces were not supposed to be there in that time.

Today there are 8 places in Istria alone that have "Katun" in their names, where "Katun" according to Wikipedia means:

Katun mainly refers to a form of autonomous medieval community in the Balkans, generally made up of semi-nomadic herders (see Katun (community)).

Katun (community):
The katun (Albanian: Katun(d); Aromanian: Cãtun; Romanian: Cătun; Serbian: Катун) is a rural self-governing community in the Balkans, traditional of the living style of Albanians, Vlachs (in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia), as well as some Slavic communities of hill people. Traditionally, a katun is based on strong kinship ties and the practice of a closed farming economy based on stockbreeding, constantly moving to find pasture. The community based its organizational, political and economic activities on the decisions of a council of elders or a senior member appointed as its leader. The Albanian communities strictly followed the Kanun, their traditional customary law that has directed all the aspects of their kinship-based society.
...

Terminology​

The katun has changed its physiognomy over time, so it is difficult to pinpoint one definition that would explain exact meaning throughout the history. Over time, katun became a synonym for a particular settlement. Medieval katun is neither a temporary nor permanent summer stână in Romanian, or băcia (transl. habitat), in a modern sense of these words.< In the area of the medieval Bosnian state, the socio-political life of the Vlach population was organized in a specific way, which bear certain similarities with the organization among Vlachs across the neighboring Balkans areas and states. Various authors have suggested that katun is a word of Illyrian, Thracian, Uralo-Altaic, Proto-Bulgarian or some other origin.
...

Earliest katuns in records​

The earliest news about Vlach katuns can be found in the sources of Byzantine provenance, in the letters of Patriarch Nicholas to Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, at the very beginning of the 12th century. ...
...

Chieftains​

The elder was chosen from a family that stood out for his wealth and war reputation, and oftentimes, but not always, he would be able to pass the seniority to his descendants. He would govern the community during a movement or war, and would maintain close relation with other elders and representatives of other families. As the katun grew and organizationally developed, warrior petty nobility multiplied, and in feudal organisation would take a title of knez, who would often rule over 40 or 50 individual villages. Family ties among the prominent individuals were important. The commander of the “warrior company” of the katun was usually the katun chieftain, the leader who would bear a specific title called katunar.

Genitive case of Katun is Katun-a, thus "Ibn Qatuna" could mean "(son) of Katun", suggesting that Balkan hillbillies and Slavic shepherds were the naval force that according to historians following official narative conducted "'one of the brightest military operations' undertaken by the Byzantine military". That would be really embarrassing, especially if they were not supposed to be anywhere near Byzantine for at least 250-300 more years until 12th century AD, when there were also the persecutions of and actual Crusades against Bogomils in the Balkans.

If we recall that even in the official history, some Illyrian and South Slavic or Sclavic maritime tribes or peoples living at the Eastern coast of Adriatic were actually famous in their time for their naval skills and piracy, like Liburnians in Roman times and Narentines who were at the peak of their strength exactly in mid 9th century when the Sack of Damietta happened, the speculation that they were the 'unknown' force that sacked the Arabs in Egypt does not sound so incredible. However, since they were described as pagans and especially if already having the organization type of Katun, it would almost certainly not be appropriate for them to appear in official records.

Just one of the possibilities that might hint that something fishy was going on in those times in respect to official historical narrative.